This shooting is yet another tragic example of the failed, grotesque insistence on helpless victim zones where any crazed gunman can be assured of a large number of disarmed, undefended, helpless victims, all crammed into one place, where he can kill many children before an armed defender arrives from elsewhere. It is disturbing and sick that the federal government so hates the right of the American people to bear arms, and so hates their natural right to self defense, that the government insists on making them helpless, disarmed victims for anyone who cares to kill them. And in this case, all of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, to ensure that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care.

That makes the Federal Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarming (with the very real threat of prison) all the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. That stupid law guaranteed the shooters would meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such an attack.

In such a shooting (as in every criminal attack), seconds count, and the people best positioned to stop the attack are the people on the scene – the intended victims and/or their care-takers. In this case, that would mean the teachers and staff of the school who were responsible for the well-being of those children, and also the parents, who should have the ability to save the lives of their own children as they take them to and from school.

The police cannot, and do not arrive in time to stop such shooters from killing large numbers of people. They are a slow reactive force compared to an armed citizen on the scene. This should be common sense, as it is obvious that in the immediacy of a criminal attack, it is the intended victims (or their immediate care-takers) who are there, in position to put a stop to the attack, if they are capable. And being capable means being armed, trained, willing, and able to use deadly force, right then, right there. Anything less leads to what we saw here.

But no doubt the rabid anti-gun government supremacists will use this to further their agenda to disarm the American people, totally ignoring that obvious, plain-as-day truth. Anti-gun nuts trust the government with guns, but not the people, and insist that the lowly citizen must be disarmed and helpless in the face of murderous assault, and must wait on slow responding armed government employees, who will not be there when the attack starts, and most often can only really clean up the horrendous crime scene afterwards and maybe, just maybe apprehend a shooter who has chosen not to kill himself (as they usually do).

The bottom line is that these teachers and staff at the Sandy Hook Elementary School were incapable of keeping these children safe, and incapable of defending them. And one of the biggest reasons they were so incapable and unprepared to save the lives of the children entrusted to their care is because the anti-gun nuts and their fellow travelers in government insisted on disarming every adult in the vicinity, by threatening them with prison time – EXCEPT the gunmen, who don’t care about the law and thus were not disarmed. laws against carrying weapons in schools don’t stop evil men with murderous intent. Such laws only disarm the law abiding and virtuous, who are now rendered incompetent to defend the precious children in their care.

This is disgusting. And yet another reason to home-school. Why would you want to leave your children helpless, in the hands of adults who are themselves helpless, and incapable of defending them, by government decree? For all we know, one of the teachers may have been a veteran, with the training and skill to use a firearm if one had been available. But all the teachers and staff, whatever their ability with firearms, were stripped of the choice and chance to save the lives of these kids.

There are more good guys than bad guys in the world. But the good guys need to be able to stop the bad guys, and that means they need to be armed so they can stop the bad guys on the spot, without having to wait for “official” government approved good guys to respond. Trust the teachers with arms so they can save the lives of their students.

Until the adults are allowed to actually act like adults, and defend themselves and their students, this kind of willful killing will continue to happen, and the federal government will in each case be a guilty party to the conspiracy by ensuring that the targets are disarmed.

Until this changes, you should refuse to give your children over to government schools lorded over by a Federal Government so callous and indifferent to their safety and lives.

Some years ago I wrote about Free Fire Zones and public safety in a letter to the editor at The Rocky Mountain News. Not a damned thing has changed since then. Other than Columbine, and all the rest of these mass killings of innocent people. Gun up people! The answer is more freedom and liberty, not less! More laws will change nothing. Other than make more victims of social predators.

Fast and Furious was a pretty blatant attempt by the obama regime to stoke the fires for advancing the cause of hoplophobia in these not so United States. Any time any restrictions are placed upon The Bill of Rights, on any of those rights, it weakens all the others. That said, it is the Second Amendment that protects all of those other rights from an overpowering and abusive government.

Since the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado happened there has been yet again a resurrection of cries and lamentations pleading for more restrictions on we the peoples ability to properly and effectively defend ourselves, our families, friends, and nation. These misguided pleas are little more than emotional gambits that would truly lessen freedom and liberty while in fact exposing all of us to even more danger without the ability to defend ourselves.

Again, we hear about automatic weapons that were not used and are nearly impossible to acquire legally here in the United States. We hear that so called Assault Rifles have no legitimate uses outside the realm of the military or law enforcement. Some people are so misinformed that even responding to such arguments exposes one to the dangers of lowering oneself to their level of ignorance. Or about the evils of high capacity magazines (called clips by the ignoramuses) by those that have never apparently heard of “swam attacks.”

All the old false arguments about gun ownership are always, once again, raised as well. Hopefully the American people have not been so brainwashed as to believe things like a gun in the home will most likely be used against you. Or that a gun will not help fend off rapes or other assaults.

Then there are all the utterly ridiculous arguments about the militia clause of the Second Amendment.

“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”

I could NOT agree more with him. I also believe that every American is a member of the militia and a soldier for America when the time comes and when the situation demands it of them. Because for me, the 2nd Amendment means that if America is attacked by its enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC, that my right to bear arms entitles me to have the ability to defend her. I in essence become a soldier with the duty to protect my country and the 2nd Amendment assures me the proper tools to do my duty.

And as for the statement that the AK 47 is best suited for the battlefield is also a true. A battlefield is not a specific area or terrain…it is the place where the enemy is met and confronted. A battlefield is wherever the fighting takes place. So, my AK47 is suited for wherever in America I choose to be.

To be honest, I don’t believe ANY regulation on firearms should be allowed. I believe our Founding Fathers wanted us to be on an even keel at all times with all of our potential enemies. Back then, the enemy had muskets and so did we. As progress of the firearm came about, so should our right to have the best arms we can.

If our potential enemies had high capacity magazines or full auto weapons, so should We The People have this same ability. We can not be an effective and well regulated militia if we have inferior weapons to those of our enemies. I am sure that our Founding Fathers did not expect future generations to fight a tyrannical govt or any enemy that could outshoot us or mow us down with little or no effort. That is why they used the word “ARMS”, to include ALL weapons. I do believe that weapons of mass destruction should certainly be regulated. However, I can not help but think that the regulation of our everyday firearms, such as caliber size, magazine capacity, rapid fire, size of weapon, barrel length, silencers and so on, is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment as our Founding Fathers intended. All of this nonsense was created by liberals who inch by inch, convinced the American people these moves were necessary to protect us. In reality, ever regulation has made us less and less able to resist those that would seek to control us and take our rights away from us.

As I am sure everyone here knows fully well, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or even about personal protection against home invaders or muggers. Yes, those are legitimate purposes to be recognized, but our 2nd Amendment is about Americans being allowed to maintain the ability to retain all other rights gratned to us by GOD. About our ability to fight, on an even footing, all enemies that want to take away our freedoms and force us into submission.

During the Revolution, We The People owned muskets as did our enemy, the British. Could you imagine us winning the Revolution if we were regulated into having less than the same arms as the British? It would have been very difficult if not impossible to win this war that was the birth of America. If not for the right to keep and bear arms, we would all still be be drinking tea and shouting long live the queen. Well, every regulation that has been put in place regarding firearms have slowly eroded our ability to oppose a tyrannical goverment. If the time ever came, (And I seriously hope it NEVER does), We The People will be at a huge disadvantage. The arms our govt allows us to have now are nowhere equally matched against those we would have to fight against if a tyrant commanding our military wanted to disarm us.

Of some concern is the fact that would our soldiers and law enforcment officers ever raise their arms and use them on everyday Americans? Would they really disarm We The People after having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution? I hope not.

However, Hitler convinced countless German soldiers to do exactly that. These soldiers swore allegiance to Hitler and killed their own countrymen. They killed them by the millions under the orders of their leader. How did so many become convinced to do this? Willingly? Did none of them have a conscience? They had weapons so why did none of them turn them on Hitler and his henchmen directly?

So, having history as my lesson, I worry that it could happen again. I bet that proud German citizens never thought that fellow Germans in uniform would kill them…but it happened. I have even read that German jews that proudly served in uniform for Germany in WWI were killed as well. Nothing protected you if Hitler and his troops wanted you dead. This is one reason I find it particularly odd when I hear jewish Americans shout for gun control. Do they not realize what they are saying?

Could history like this really repeat itself? Have we learned from it? I would like to, but we are human and just as humans have done for thousands of generations, we always seem to make the same mistakes over and over. Could it happen again?

We are living in interesting times. I know that during every election it is said that this is the most important one. However, I think it is a fact this time.

I have read much about all of our presidents throughout American history and even though I have not agreed with the ideaology of some of them, I do believe that every one of our presidents in the past loved America. That they were doing what they believed was best for Americans, at least to some degree. Of course, corruption in our government has always existed, but these were almost always for personal gain and cronism. This is the first time that I feel we have a president in office, along with other HIGH ranking politicians that truly do HATE America and want to destroy it. That they really have never been proud of their country their entire adult lives. That it is more than just about stealing our treasury for their own person gain or taking action for more power and control. For the first time, I am almost positive that those in charge want more than wealth and power, they want to DESTROY America.

Just like those evil individuals of history who hated their fellow countrymen so much that they threw open the gates to their country’s enemies that have led to complete destruction, obama wants to do the same. Just remember his quote to the russian ambassador not that long ago. Look at the policies and laws he is enacting that make us more and more vulnerable. Not only is he working to disarm the people, he is working diligently to dismantle our military and destroy our nukes. What is he doing, and why is he allowed to do this?

I think obma is a lackey of someone with even more power and influence and that obama is a pawn that will be discarded after his purpose has been fulfilled. I used to not believe in conspiracy theories and thought that only wackos would think like this. No more.

I hope I am merely being paranoid. I hope that we have a legitimate election that sees obama out the door. An election that keeps and takes our senate and house. And that Romney does the things he has promised. Until November elections are passed and even more so, that Romney is sworn in, I will remain slightly uneasy. They say that good always triumphs over evil…I hope they are right.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If it saves only one life? No, it’s not worth it, period. How many lives have been lost in the name of freedom and liberty over the years?

Wake up America! Get rid of the power mad big government authoritarians of all political stripes! If you don’t? Then be prepared for a blood bath. Either in a full blown revolution, or by the very government that you pathetically expect to protect you!

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is due out in 2013. Psychiatrists use the manual to diagnose mental illness. Among the changes in this edition will be the exclusion of five of the 10 personality disorders listed in the current edition. One of those five is narcissistic personality disorder. According to The New York Times, “The central requirement for N.P.D. is a special kind of self-absorption: a grandiose sense of self, a serious miscalculation of one’s abilities and potential that is often accompanied by fantasies of greatness.”

Many psychiatrists aren’t happy about the change. Dr. John Gunderson of Harvard calls the removal “unenlightened” and says, “They have little appreciation for the damage they could be doing.” But for some N.P.D. sufferers, the change brings hope. In two short years, for example, one particular occupant of a majestic white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will likely be seeking new employment and new living quarters. Better, then, that he’s free to do so without the stigma of this dreadful disorder.

Mayor Richard Daley is almost as good at harming the gun control crowd’s agenda as the Gun Salesman of the year epic fail obama is. Every time he opens his mouth lately he says things that make the arguments of people such as myself so much easier to defend.

Fearful that America’s Supreme Court will soon strike down Chicago’s handgun ban, frustrated by the Illinois legislature’s rejection of his anti-gun agenda, and repudiated by American courts and legislatures over his plan to sue federally licensed manufacturers and dealers of firearms for third-party crimes, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (D) is showing contempt for his own country’s and state’s institutions, by seeking a foreign entity to enforce his anti-gun agenda against the American people.

This week, Daley called for “redress against the gun industry” in the World Court, in The Hague, Netherlands. Forgetting or not caring who his constituents are, Daley blurted “This is coming from international mayors. They’re saying, ‘We’re tired of your guns, America.’”

Daley’s global gun control fantasy received the endorsement of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D), whose enthusiasm for international law is apparently matched by his novel interpretation of the United States Constitution. “I love the Second Amendment,” Nutter recently said, but “I have a First Amendment right not to be shot.” Nutter’s utterly ignorant statement proves that in our country, you can be elected to public office while knowing remarkably little about the Bill of Rights. Nutter acknowledged that the Daley’s scheme is a “long shot.” But, he said, “you never know until you try,” adding “The political establishment in many state capitals—and certainly in Washington [is] so deathly afraid of the NRA that people cannot make the right decision for their own constituents.”

And that’s not the only outrageous proposal put for forth by Chicago politicians of late. Illinois State Representatives John Fritchey (D) and LaShawn Ford (D) have decided that the best way to battle crime in “gun-free” Chicago is to militarize the city. The two legislators recently called on Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D), Mayor Daley, and Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis to bring in the National Guard in an effort to thwart crime.

So in a city that is quickly starting to sound more like a banana republic, law-abiding citizens are denied the means to defend themselves, while the best suggestion anti-gun lawmakers can come up with to address crime is to emasculate the Chicago police department, and bring in soldiers to occupy the city and patrol the streets!

It’s a sad day in America when lawmakers would rather turn to National Guard patrols of city streets than to allow law-abiding citizens the choice to legally own and carry firearms for self-defense.

“After months of hysterically warning viewers that cheerful, well-dressed tea partiers carrying ‘I Can See November From My House’ signs could suddenly erupt into wanton violence, MSNBC finally had proof: Timothy McVeigh. … On her April 14 show, [Rachel] Maddow gave a ‘War of the Worlds’ report on gun rights activists whom she claimed were planning tributes to Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. ‘On the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh,’ she said, ‘there will be two marches on Washington.’ After reminding viewers that McVeigh was ‘an anti-government extremist with ties to the militia movement’ (his only ‘ties’ being that he tried to join the Michigan Militia, but was rejected) Maddow said one of the groups, the Second Amendment March, had ‘been holding armed rallies at state capitols from Kentucky to Montana to Virginia — anti-government marches and rallies at which participants are encouraged to wear and display their guns.’ So if I have this straight, the pro-Second Amendment marchers were both armed … AND displaying guns! Having received an ‘A plus’ from the Department of Redundancy Department, a deadly earnest Maddow continued: ‘Also on the occasion of the Oklahoma City bombing anniversary,’ there would be an Open Carry rally. Participants, she said, ‘are being encouraged to bring guns’ (you know, just like the guns Timothy McVeigh used to shoot up the federal building in Oklahoma City). True, April 19 is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It’s also the anniversary of Lexington and Concord. Once upon a time, the skirmish that sparked the Revolutionary War was a date that every schoolchild knew. When British soldiers moved to seize the gunpowder and arms of voluntary militias, armed citizens defended themselves, firing upon the British in ‘the shot heard ’round the world’ — as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it in his ‘Concord Hymn.’ Hmmm, I wonder if the gun rights activists chose April 19 for their rallies because it was the anniversary of Lexington and Concord — or because it was the anniversary of Oklahoma City?” –columnist Ann Coulter﻿

Once many years ago, while down at Denver General Hospital, some high power super Doc proceeded to chew on my butt because I was reading a hunting magazine in the driveway to the Emergency Department and it had, OH MY GOD!, a picture of a gun on the cover!

That friends, is a person that suffers from mental illness. As noted above… Anyways, right about then a D.G. crew brought in a bad guy that had a few well deserved holes in him. Seems a Denver Cop did what Cops do when confronted with deadly force. But like the better than thou Super Doc said; “Guns are only for killing and never do anyone any good!” Yeah… Right Doc!

But I digress, as usual… read on.

The notion that lemmings deliberately hasten their demise by rushing into the sea may be a myth, but the anti-Second Amendment group and its spokesmen really are scurrying through a series of blunders that may hasten their steady march to irrelevancy.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the group’s two theories about the Second Amendment were rejected by the Supreme Court, one of them by five justices and the other by all nine. In 2009, they tried, with no success, to frighten America about tourists carrying guns for protection in national parks.

This year, they’ve insulted their most powerful ally, President Obama, for not setting aside the economy, the war, and his social agenda to push for gun control legislation Congress does not support. They’ve given the states their worst “Brady grades” ever, even though violent crime continues to decrease. And, they’ve badgered the Starbucks coffee company for allowing customers to legally carry firearms in its stores.

This week, though, Brady lawyer Dennis Henigan—the world’s most prolific advocate of the legal theories the Supreme Court sent to the shredder two years ago—further diminished the group’s credibility by claiming “The evidence is overwhelming that the ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. . . . [T]he scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been ‘associated with uniform increases in crime.'”

If he had just pushed himself away from the computer after his first four words, he would have been much better off. There’s “evidence,” all right, and it’s certainly “overwhelming.” Today, there are 36 states with “shall issue” laws—an all-time high. Sixty-three percent of Americans live in “shall issue” states, five million Americans have carry permits, and two states don’t even require a permit to carry concealed.

“Uniform increases in crime”? The nation’s violent crime rate is at a 35-year low.

Henigan also claimed to have 33,000 signatures on his anti-Starbucks online petition, which can be signed by anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. But in a country of five million carry permit holders, up to 80 million gun owners, and 300 million people, Brady’s petition and $1.70 will get you …

Any government that fears the people that it leads, has reason to fear. Because what that means is simply that they are ruling the people, not leading them, or, heaven forbid, representing them. Cloud an issue, then bury it with rhetoric and call it anything but what it is seems to be the playbook being used by today’s politicians…

Norton Calls on Homeland Security Officials to Restrict Gun Carrying Outside Public Events Where President and Federal Officials Appear in D.C. and Nationwide

August 19, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, today called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan to restrict the carrying of weapons openly or concealed in or around the areas where the President of the United States and cabinet officials are appearing, following reports, photos, and videos of people carrying guns outside of an Obama town hall meeting in Arizona earlier this week. Norton said that this restriction is particularly necessary in the nation’s capital, where recently filed litigation seeks to overturn D.C. law in order to allow residents and visitors to carry concealed guns in public.

The President, cabinet officials and other top foreign and domestic officials regularly travel in motorcades in the nation’s capital. The risks of public shootings, which threaten homeland security, have been minimized by gun laws in the District that restrict both open and concealed gun carrying in public. After a Norton hearing last session that revealed that a similar bill would have allowed the open carrying of weapons in the District, even the National Rifle Association voluntarily withdrew the dangerous provisions.

Norton said that a reported 10 to 12 people were carrying weapons in Arizona on Tuesday in the vicinity of President Obama’s appearance. “I seek no change in the local laws of other jurisdictions, and ask only respect for gun laws in my own district,” Norton said. “However, it is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the President is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that is even closer to the President.”

The Congresswoman said that she hopes that increasingly brazen NRA attempts to nationalize its no-holds barred approach to guns has finally gotten the attention of federal authorities. “The NRA’s most recent actions show that the NRA intends to go national on the Ensign amendment approach, the amendment attached to the Senate version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill that would abolish all gun laws in the District,” Norton said. She cited the recently defeated Thune amendment to permit the carrying of weapons openly as evidence that the NRA is pressing nationwide its view that there should be no local limits on guns in the nation’s capital or elsewhere. “The NRA is using the District as a test case because it is uniquely subject to Congressional dictates. Both in the courts and in Congress, beginning with the violation of D.C.’s home rule right to enact its own gun safety laws, the NRA is on a national gun campaign,” she said. However, the NRA suffered a surprise setback in the defeat of the Thune amendment to the defense authorization bill, which would have allowed gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines, violating restrictions in other jurisdictions. A similar but even more radical section in the Ensign amendment would make a unique exception for the nation’s capital to become the only U.S. jurisdiction where people could cross state lines to purchase handguns and bring them back, facilitating gun running by criminals, terrorists or gangs intent on breaching homeland security in the National Capital Region or public peace in neighborhoods.

After years of losing, gun control advocates say this week’s vote on confirming Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will be their long awaited win that shatters conventional wisdom and proves that the Second Amendment is no longer the unstoppable force of Washington politics.

President Obama’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs had Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, so upset that he blocked it a move that puts only a temporary hold on the appointment.

Zogby/O’Leary asked voters: “Would you support or oppose a U.S. Senator who voted to confirm a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense?” Fifty-two percent of American voters would oppose the re-election of any Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Only 26 percent of voters would support such a Senator.